Oasis

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible in: 2019 (The 2020 Induction Ceremony)


Inducted into Rock Hall Projected in 2020 (ranked #168) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Definitely Maybe (1994)
(What's The Story) Morning Glory? (1995)
Be Here Now (1997)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Live Forever (1994)
Champagne Supernova (1995)
Wonderwall (1995)
Don't Look Back In Anger (1995)
D'You Know What I Mean? (1997)

Oasis @ Wikipedia

Oasis Videos

Will Oasis be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

124 comments so far (post your own)

All right.OASIS are still a little young so 2019 is quite near. But yeah for one the most greatest rock n roll bands ever it will be worth the wait. OASIS are fabulous, confident and very, very talented. If I had my way I would induct them in their right now. That arrogant swagger of theirs simplify speaks for itself!

Posted by Anas on Friday, 09.22.06 @ 12:15pm


Oasis do deserve to be in there - but i'm sure this video is of them miming to the song?? So not a great representation of them as a band... How come they can only be in in 2019? They should have gone in in 1995 - though i know there wasnt a hall of fame for the uk then. Madferit!

Posted by Bobends on Saturday, 11.4.06 @ 15:46pm


All dependent on how many UK members are involved in the voting process at the time........the band has a much higher status over there than in the United States where everyone here admits they haven't done jack since Morning Glory......

Posted by Casper on Monday, 12.11.06 @ 02:59am


oasis deserve to be there, they were amazing since they first appeared 20 years ago, they have written hit after hit and everyone either likes them or respects them.

Posted by kfeointgh on Monday, 01.8.07 @ 04:53am


Of all the British bands from the 1990s, Oasis has the best shot of induction because they were the only one to have made any significant impression in America. With the legendary feuding - both with other bands and within the band - Oasis is the most famous band of its genre (even though Blur is more deserving of induction). The Beatles' biggest fans will get the nod (eventually), and Blur, Suede, Supergrass, and the others will be locked out.

Posted by Andrew on Tuesday, 03.6.07 @ 21:38pm


they'll make it.

Posted by kris10 on Friday, 03.16.07 @ 11:53am


lock.

Posted by oasisonfire on Thursday, 03.22.07 @ 17:57pm


Lock, lock, lock.

btw bobends, a band becomes eligible when it has been going for 25 years

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 05.17.07 @ 12:32pm


Yes. Like i've said trillions of times, if they don't get in, than no other British alternative band deserves to get in.

Posted by Ryan Gibbs on Saturday, 05.19.07 @ 14:16pm


great band

Posted by Kevin J Wright on Monday, 08.13.07 @ 20:06pm


How is Oasis a "lock"? They were pretty great in 1995 but have they done anything notable in the last decade?

Posted by A-Killa on Friday, 08.31.07 @ 11:46am


they were pretty great in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. Alright it was never the same after Britpop, but the singles Lyla And The Importance of Being Idle were pretty good.

And they influenced pretty much every fucking decent indie/alt/britpop revival band today

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 09.5.07 @ 12:53pm


they have plenty the last 10 years, look how their 2005 album did in america and look how the tour sold out madison square garden and the hollywood bowl.....that all happen in 2005, it was their biggest american tour ever...

Posted by Jeff on Friday, 09.28.07 @ 01:10am


If we were to go back to '95 and ask me that question, you could put your life savings on the answer be 'YES!!!!' (note the exclamation marks). They were one of the first bands that I truly 'clicked' with, and from then on my exploration of music began.

Sappy glimpse at my history aside, they haven't done alot since MG

Posted by micheal on Tuesday, 11.27.07 @ 15:06pm


"the band has a much higher status over there than in the United States where everyone here admits they haven't done jack since Morning Glory......" - Casper

Casper, the way you say that makes it sound like everyone in the USA is writing for Pitchfork.

Also, in terms of sheer influence, Oasis really does deserve an induction. Maybe that concept gets a bit lost on you guys, as the only 'big players' from the USA who really cite Oasis are the Killers and.....Nelly Furtado. Come on, they're hardly big innovaters. Or innovaters at all.

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 14:20pm


GREAT band.

Posted by Steve Potocin on Friday, 03.21.08 @ 22:29pm


Lock.

Posted by Jeff on Monday, 03.24.08 @ 10:56am


Derivative, drug-addled, forgettable. Didn't do anything the Beatles didn't already do better.

Posted by Al on Monday, 03.24.08 @ 11:24am


Yeah, but I don't think Lennon OR MacCartney could have done "Wonderwall" or "Live Forever."

Posted by Liam on Monday, 03.24.08 @ 11:27am


Yeah, but I don't think Lennon OR MacCartney could have done "Wonderwall" or "Live Forever."

Why those two songs - I mean, they are good songs; well structured and recorded, but certainly not epic. Neither one of them will ever be considered an industry standard, IMO. I know you were responding to Al's comment, but they are just antagonistic words. No one knows what Lennon and Mac could have done. It has been almost 40 years since they last wrote a song together, and one of them is long dead.

I think "Live Forever" is a much better song by a large margin. Personally, I like Oasis very much and I believe they did breath some refreshing air into the music scene. And I hope they are considered when their time comes.

Derivative, drug-addled, forgettable. Didn't do anything the Beatles didn't already do better. - Al

I don't want to break the news to you, but have you listened to some of the Lennon/Mac songs. Drug-addled does not express half of it - #9, #9, #9 (although I do love the song)

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 03.24.08 @ 12:53pm


"Neither one of them will ever be considered an industry standard,"

Well, I think all the crappy britpop-clones seem to disagree on this.

I especially don't think they could write those songs now (had they both been alive) - have you heard Mac's latest record? It's terrible. I've always hated Lennon's solo career aswell.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 03.24.08 @ 13:01pm


Drugs helped the Beatles (as they did a lot of other bands), but in the case of Oasis, all it did was pull the band apart. In 15 years, no one is going to care much about Oasis. Just a minor footnote in rock history.

Posted by Al on Monday, 03.24.08 @ 13:04pm


The Arctic Monkeys and their co-horts (eg 97% of UK mainstream alternative) would like a word outside, Al.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 03.24.08 @ 13:09pm


BTW, who do you think WILL be remembered in 15 years, Al? 'Cos I'm pretty sure kids will continue to pick up copies "Definitely Maybe" and "(What's The Story) Morning Glory?" in that time.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 03.24.08 @ 13:11pm


I especially don't think they could write those songs now (had they both been alive) - have you heard Mac's latest record? It's terrible. I've always hated Lennon's solo career aswell. - Liam

Have you ever attempted to put your thoughts into words; poetry or song? You would most likely be writing from where you stand at that point in time in this world and it doesn't matter if you are expressing inner thoughts of yourself or views of the outside world. I think Mac's latest rambling are coming from the mind and soul of a 60 year old. Obviously it is not going to have the same feel as what he had to say 40 years ago. Personally, I have not listened to any of his solo work since Wings and I will always hate that rubbish he wrote after 9-11 (Freedom - that was crap). As for Lennon, he was dead before you were even born. I admit Double Fantasy was a bit too much for me, but I think many people, musicians and fans alike would have a thing or two to say to you about his solo work being crap. I am not saying it was the greatest, but there were some amazing pieces that he recorded.

As for Oasis, I think they will get inducted at some point, but again, I have no clue what this nominating committee thinks.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 04.10.08 @ 06:39am


"Memory Almost Full" is still a mediocre album. Keep away from it, that's my advice.

I really don't see anything in Lennon's solo career. "Plastic Ono Band" and "Imagine" are competent albums that I find not at all remarkable, and everything after that just bores the hell out of me.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 04.10.08 @ 08:16am


Oasis blows actually and will never be inducted. So there...

Posted by Big Daddy on Thursday, 04.10.08 @ 14:21pm


big daddy, pull your head out of your ass, that way u can hear the great music oasis makes!

Anyone who says they haven't done anything since morning glory or be here now probably haven't bought the records. Plus as someone mentioned earlier, 2005 was a huge year for oasis with their biggest American tour ever...I was at the sold out Hollywood bowl!

Posted by jss on Thursday, 05.8.08 @ 22:55pm


Oasis beautiful lyrics and beautiful melodies book themselves in the hall of Fame. Their music cannot be disliked.Any person can listen to them no matter what genre they into

Posted by Old School on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 06:13am


Beatles knock off artists. There I said it.

Flame away

Posted by Me on Wednesday, 10.1.08 @ 14:38pm


Oasis boosted their chances with their new album this year (Dig Out Your Soul). Remember, they may not appeal to North Americans with their genre of sound and rhythm but they are amazingly popular in England for a reason.

Posted by Lester C. on Saturday, 12.6.08 @ 18:23pm


Oasis should be in the HOF on the strength of Definately Maybe and What's the Story alone The Beatles and Oasis are the best bands ever, period. And to Al 3/08 The Beatles never did anything as big and menacing as Columbia.

Posted by L on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 16:09pm


They are okay. I hear major Beatles, Sgt. Pepper era, and possibly some Nirvana influence in their songs. Liam Gallagher has that nasal voice like John Lennon. Not eligible until 2019. That's a long time away.

Posted by Bubble on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 17:07pm


I think they'll get in. The only other brit. band of the last 20 years that also has a chance is Radiohead. They've still got time to get out two or three more albums before 2019. Also with the success of Dig Out Your Soul and Don't Believe The Truth as long as they can get one last pretty good album out then they'll be in.

Posted by Robert on Wednesday, 03.25.09 @ 18:01pm


If the best britpop band, blur, doesn't get in, there's no way the most derivative, mainstream, and repetetive britpop band should get in. I mean blur is just a thousand times better than oasis and it makes me sad that oasis will be better remembered because they were bigger sellouts

Posted by orson on Thursday, 04.2.09 @ 12:57pm


Why is Oasis a sellout and not Blur? Because they charted a few more singles than Blur did?

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 04.2.09 @ 16:50pm


Last time I remember didn't Blur go on top Of the pop and mim or lipsync their song while Oasis went out there and had a laugh while Noel and Liam switch places and did each others miming during Roll With It. Now, who's the sell out here. Besides Whats The Story Morning Glory an Definetly Maybe blows out anything Blur and I'm a Blur and Oasis fan so I can say that. Blur made a lot of good albums, but when you play a Blur album back to back with an Oasis album you just don't get the same feeling. Besides, did Blur make Wonderwall and Champagne Supernva. I think not. Oasis in Blur out because Blur is not well known by Americans and if you look at the reviews for most of their albums they are pretty bad. Blur was a singles band while Oasis made complete albums.

Posted by Robert on Saturday, 04.11.09 @ 21:42pm


Oasis will probably be the only britpop group with high chance of getting in. Even though here in the states everybody knows them for one album (Wonderwall, Don't Look Back in Anger, and Champagne Supernova in partucular), they are cited by just about every indie group (that means the post-punk revival, the britpop revival etc.) from Franz Ferdinand to the Killers (the two indies with the most success in the states) and basically helped create the whole britpop sound, and are acclamied by casual fans and mainstream critics alike.

Posted by lame on Saturday, 05.16.09 @ 22:26pm


I'm sure they'll get in due to their worldwide super-stardom, but honestly, I just don't get the appeal. Yes, I'm an Amerian, but my ancestors were nearly all British so it can't be a DNA thing. I don't hate them, some of their songs are nice, but for the most part, I find them duller than dirt.

Posted by Katrina on Friday, 06.19.09 @ 12:46pm


O-ASS-IS

Posted by Chris on Monday, 06.29.09 @ 17:52pm


I think Oasis have a very good chance of induction. Out of all the Britpop groups they are the band that has had the most impact in America and I think Britpop and alternative rock in general is not something that will be frowned upon by the hall(there is no way Nirvana isn't getting in).

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 07.6.09 @ 13:33pm


Though Noel is a douche, Oasis is amazingly talented. I say yes.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 08.3.09 @ 20:39pm


O.K., since nobody has brought it up yet, I'll be the first here. Oasis has allegedly called it a day (though they've had arguments like this before). This time it's supposed to be quite serious, and everyone is saying this is really it.

For the sake of it, if this really is IT, what does everybody think of their chances for the Hall? Where do they rank w/you, and if you had a 1-10 scale, 10 being the highest, down to 1, where would they rank?

and yes, you can say 6.5, 7.5, if you really want to get specific.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 09.2.09 @ 18:36pm


O.K., since nobody has brought it up yet, I'll be the first here. Oasis has allegedly called it a day (though they've had arguments like this before). This time it's supposed to be quite serious, and everyone is saying this is really it.

For the sake of it, if this really is IT, what does everybody think of their chances for the Hall? Where do they rank w/you, and if you had a 1-10 scale, 10 being the highest, down to 1, where would they rank?

and yes, you can say 6.5, 7.5, if you really want to get specific.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 09.2.09 @ 18:36pm
--------------------------------------------------
I've taken the time to post this again if anyone is interested.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 09.4.09 @ 06:11am


Well to start out with, as far ranking their chacnes with the Hall.....

I'm going to give them a 7/10. I think to ensure Oasis's induction it's going to be important for the Hall to acknowledge and induct some of the more popular British alternative bands that kind of led the way for the Brit-pop explosion in the mid '90s. Outside of your general british "classic rock" bands, the Hall hasn't been exactly acknowleding of British rock trends. After all T.Rex is still waiting on induction. As are the majority of the British punk bands of the late '70s and early '80s.

I think in order for Oasis to get inducted the Hall will have to induct a band like the Smiths, who were really one of the biggest and most influential bands of the 1980's. The Smiths, to me were to British alternative rock what R.E.M. was to American alternative rock. They were kind of the major starting point for each of the alternative bands and trends that followed them in their respective countries.

If British alternative bands can break through the glass ceiling that other previous British rock styles and trends haven't really been able to do (in particular with the Smiths), then Oasis's chances of induction will move up tremendously.

But then again, many of the pioneering metal bands are still waiting for consideration, let alone induction, and Metallica is already in. So it's possible that the Hall could bypass the glam, punk, and indie/alternative British rock bands of the '70s and '80s and go right for Oasis. After all, for a brief period in the mid '90s, they were one of the biggest bands in rock music, even in America. I think their musical legacy will speak for itself and increase their chances. It just really depends on it the Hall will start inducting more post-"classic rock" british bands.


As for where do they rank with me? I'd give them a 9/10. To me they deserve it. I'm not a huge fan by all means, but they were the one "brit-pop" group to break through to America which was really a significant achievement. Blur managed to get one big hit over here ("Song #2"), whereas Oasis from about 1995-1997 were one of the biggest rock bands even in America. And taking the fact that managed to break through into America aside, Oasis were certainly one of the top 2 or 3 biggest "brit-pop" bands of that period and style, maybe the biggest (I'm sure Blur and even Pulp fans will argue with that one). It could be argued that Oasis may have been the biggest and definitive British rock band for the 1990's, which is significant. I think they've earned their place in rock history, and thus are deserving.

Posted by Donnie on Friday, 09.4.09 @ 07:21am


are oasis indie or britpop

Posted by marko on Saturday, 09.12.09 @ 18:07pm


not gonna happen. if it was a british hall of fame, they'd be a lock. but it isn't. therefore, dream on.

Posted by ss on Monday, 10.5.09 @ 02:12am


dream on.

Posted by ss on Monday, 10.5.09 @ 02:12am

Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream until your dreams come true
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream until your dream comes through
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream On Dream On
Dream On Dream On

Sing with me, sing for the year
sing for the laughter, sing for the tear
sing with me, if it's just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away
Sing with me, sing for the year
sing for the laughter, sing for the tear
Sing with me, if it's just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away......

Posted by Joker on Monday, 10.5.09 @ 06:53am


Anyone who thinks Oasis doesn't deserve it or simply won't get it either doesn't like the band and holds a grudge, or doesn't understand Oasis' importance.

Let's tackle the "breaking America" concept, first.

Almost everyone in the US knows: Live Forever, Wonderwall, Don't Look Back in Anger, Champagne Supernova, Stop Crying Your Heart Out, Lyla, The Shock of the Lightning...

...that's 7 songs at the very least....

...but then add to the fact that many Americans have WTSMG album, and therefore you can probably tack on great songs like Morning Glory and Cast No Shadow and Some Might Say to that list

Then how about all their other great songs every other country knows? Colombia, Rock N Roll Star, Slide Away, Go Let It Out, Where Did It All Go Wrong, Don't Go Away, Stand By Me, The Masterplan, Talk Tonight, Half the World Away, Acquiesce, Supersonic, Hindu Times, Little By Little, Songbird, The Importance of Being Idle, Part of the Queue, Bag It Up, The Turning, Waiting for the Rapture....

30 songs listed there, and many more I've left out which could be included as well. And you still want to argue?

How about the fastest ever debut album (before the Arctic Monkeys?)

How about the largest ever outside gig at Knebworth (played to 250,000 over 2 nights!)

How about starting a movement in Britain and ushering in Britpop?

How about having anthems that spoke to the average person and united people around the world, no matter race/religion/gender, etc?

How about inspiring all the current bands we see today? - Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian, The Killers, The Enemy, etc etc

How about the fact that they aren't fake but rather are real people who worked themselves up from poverty? And that they are the most honest celebrities around and haven't really sold out (debatable in recent years, mind)?

I could go on and on.

If they don't get inducted, then the Hall of Fame will officially be a farce. No one is more deserving post-1994 than Oasis.

Please, list me any band who released their debut since 1994 to be more deserving than Oasis. You can't. Why? B/C Oasis are the band of this generation, whether you like it or not.

LOCK.

Posted by B. on Saturday, 12.5.09 @ 00:15am


They've written some of the best songs of the last 20 years, and All-Music Guide credits them, Blur and Suede for bringing guitar music back to the top of the British charts (I'm from Britain, but I was young at the time). Morning Glory is one album I'll never get tired of. They are influential, and despite the feuding Blur are big fans, and so's Johnny Marr. Pete Townshend is a fan as well. I think they will get in, but hopefully some of the more deserving groups can be taken care of before 2019 (Deep Purple, T.Rex; the latter was an influence on them.) Plus, The Smiths and The Stone Roses should go in first. Yes, Liam and Noel are a bit unbearable at times, and if they don't reunite before then it could hurt them, but their status in Britain (plus being one of the biggest bands in the world in the mid to late 90's) is just too big to ignore. I vote yes.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 02.5.10 @ 13:40pm


3rd highest selling british album of all time.(what's the story)

Debut album (definiely maybe) voted best of all time in a number of polls.
Influenced these bands at the very least- Arctic Monkeys, Jet, Twisted Wheel, The Killers, Coldplay, The Coral, Glasvegas, Sum 41, Ricky, Pete Doherty and Kasabian.
Whatever you think of the band members shouldn't get in the way of how outstanding their music is.

LOCK

Posted by Joe on Monday, 02.22.10 @ 04:45am


Here is some of their U.S. achievments:

7 Million albums sold
-Definitely Maybe - Platinum
-(What's The Story) Morning Glory 4x Platinum
-Be Here Now - Platinum

2 songs (Wonderwall & Champagne Supernova) that have gone gold digitally.

Morning Glory as high as #4 in album chart
Be Here Now #2 in album chart
Dig Out Your Soul #5 in album chart

Sold out MSG in 2005 & 2008

Hour long 'Behind The Music' on VH1
Hour long biography on BIO

Now take into account another 45 million albums sold in the rest of the world. 8 #1 UK singles. Every album, bar an excellent collection of B-Sides (some better than their A-sides)& a live album, went to #1 in the UK. Set all time attendance, fastest selling debut (Definitely Maybe) fastest selling album (Be Here Now) of all time (still standing) in the UK & now a Guiness Record of 23 consecutive top 10 singles in the UK.
Just won a Brit award for best album of the last 30 years w/ Morning Glory.

7 million albums I think is breaking America & the rest of what they did outside the U.S. is unreal.

Is the title the U.S Rock N Roll Hall of Fame?

Go to www.acclaimedmusic.net

Has a great cross rankings of bands from input from many countries.

Posted by K on Tuesday, 03.16.10 @ 23:12pm


I'm going to simplify things. They were huge in the 90's, they've influenced modern British indie, they helped keep guitar music on the British charts, they set some records. It's a partially borderline case but I think they should (and will) go in. It'll help if The Smiths get in by then. acclaimed music is a compilation of all the critical rankings, and most of the artists ranked ahead of them on that site either are in the Hall or will be by 2019, which shows that critics will probably vote for them.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 03.21.10 @ 21:35pm


Or to change things around a bit.

Why they will get in: From the summer of 1994 to their split several months ago, the biggest band in Britain, with all seven of their albums going to #1 (okay, they weren't the biggest band in the UK in the 2000's, but overall during that span they were the biggest band, and definitely the biggest in the late 90's.) If what Liam says is true, then they're a big influence on today's indie, and alongside Blur and Suede gave popular music in Britain a shot in the arm and helped get British guitar music back to the top of charts (Stone Roses were having their legal battle, Radiohead wouldn't break through until the late 90's, New Order weren't exclusively a guitar band.) At the very least, most critics love the first two albums. The only Britpop band (and one of only a handful of British Indie bands) to break the US.

Why they won't get in: There are a great many critics and fans who feel they didn't do much after Morning Glory, and starting with Be Here Now tanking they pretty much became a cult band in the US, which doesn't help their chances. Also, by the end, a great many people no longer cared (if you check the feedback from the BBC website, only a few people over 20 pages seemed gutted over it. There were a great many people who said they should have quit after Morning Glory or at the end of the 90's, and many more who said they were never interested in them and wouldn't miss them.) Their arrogance and swagger rubbed a great many people the wrong way (yet with The Stones it's called "charisma", not that I'm comparing Oasis to The Stones, it just seems like a double standard), and could the "derivative of the Beatles" tag affect voters? Also, they weren't particularly innovative.

Should they get in? Well, the Perpetuation/Impact is there, to a degree. If their Influence is as big as Liam says then they should get in, if their influence is limited then probably not. Either way, not before The Smiths and The Stone Roses at the very least (and there are more artists both in and outside of Alternative/Indie who have stronger credentials.)

Verdict: It could be tough, but they'll make it eventually. Possibly first-ballot, but definitely within three to five years. I'll do a full Keltner when the time comes.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 03.30.10 @ 18:56pm


i think they're amazing and definitely deserves to be inducted, but it would be pretty awkward if liam and noel showed up together at the ceremony

Posted by ryan on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 16:00pm


Oasis happens to be the only britpop band that's cracked the US significantly. Blur had a few hits on alternative radio, Suede had one charting song on the modern rock chart and that was it, Pulp and Supergrass never charted once. Morning Glory sold 4 million copies in the United States, tack on two more platinum albums. They were all over MTV in the mid 90's, had three top 40 hits, two modern rock chart toppers, 7 million albums sold, and their latest album charted top 5. That's just their influence in the US. In the UK, it's a whole other level. Oasis will likely be the only britpop band in the hall, although Blur and the Roses also had minor success in the US, which could help those bands out. But the question is will they even show up, they broke up because the gallagher brothers were fighting again.

Posted by lame on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 20:21pm


The Gallagher Bros...."Legends In Their Own Minds"...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 20:24pm


Oasis has no respect in the usa except for one album, what's the story morning glory. There new album charted pretty high, but still they blew their chance at having long term success in the us, because of be here now which reached #2 on the chart, but was a critical failure, they cancelled half their american tour, and liam and noel kept insulting americans during their concerts.

Posted by Parry on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 20:24pm


I remember in the 7th grade Oasis was the shit. Everyone would sing Wonderwall over and over. That was 1996. Now nobody cares about Oasis and everybody just sees them as beatles wannabees. Dey had their little brush with fame, but it didn't last. Nirvana, now that's a band that should get in.

Posted by Otis on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 23:42pm


One album dosen't get you in unless if it was a truly groundbreaking record (like the Sex Pistols). Oasis had one album that was a success. After that they threw away their careers with Be Here Now.

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, 05.11.10 @ 18:00pm


Woah there, how'd this sudden bunch of comments happen?

'The Gallagher Bros...."Legends In Their Own Minds"...' - Gitarzan, currently my favorite person on this site.

Despite being a fan, that's certainly true. They did have some accomplishments, and growing up in the UK they were the coolest band out there (Morning Glory was nearly worn out in the car.) However, I have now matured, and though I still love them, I can now see they weren't nearly as revolutionary as the Wembley Stadium crowds would have you believe. I found it a bit galling to see Noel slagging off Factory Records; he's a clever guy but not fit to carry New Order or Joy Division's gear in terms of legendary status.

"i think they're amazing and definitely deserves to be inducted, but it would be pretty awkward if liam and noel showed up together at the ceremony" - ryan

Calm down, they're not even eligible for 9 more years. Plenty of time for Liam and Noel to work on their careers, calm down and then talk at some point. Their Mum will force them to make up, you'll see.

"Now nobody cares about Oasis and everybody just sees them as beatles wannabees. Dey had their little brush with fame, but it didn't last. Nirvana, now that's a band that should get in." -Otis

Nirvana, now there's another great band who's accomplishments have been overblown. When you say "brush with fame" that only applies to the US, and they had many influences besides the Beatles. As John Robb said, they're almost every great moment in British pop all rolled into one.

"One album dosen't get you in unless if it was a truly groundbreaking record (like the Sex Pistols). Oasis had one album that was a success. After that they threw away their careers with Be Here Now." - Mike

Again, the US isn't the only country out there and they had two other platinum albums. I agree they weren't groundbreaking, but in the UK... my god.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 05.11.10 @ 19:48pm


-Definitely Maybe shot to #1 in the UK, and for a while was the fastest selling debut in British history (first-week sales later beaten by the Arctic Monkeys' debut.) Also went platinum in the US. (Of course, with their comments toward other bands and Liam's behavior at the 1996 MTV Music Awards they pretty much ruined any chances of long-term US stardom.)
-(What's the Story) Morning Glory? sold 4 million copies in the US (#4 charting) and 4 million in the UK, and is to date the 3rd biggest album in British history.
-Be Here Now went platinum and charted at #2 in the US, but was an even bigger dissapointment (with bigger backlash) in the UK. But let's be honest: Your average UK band would be thrilled with their album being #1 and selling nearly 2 million. Not to mention that it had the biggest first-week sales in British history.
-The remaining 4 studio albums were also #1 (7 #1's!) and all were at least 2x platinum (600,000 copies).
-2 Gold singles in the US ("Wonderwall" and "Champagne Supernova"), and along with "Don't Look Back In Anger" get plenty of radio play still.
-8 (!) #1 singles in the UK, plus 16 additional Top 10's, 2 additional Top 20's and 1 additional Top 40. So, in all, 27 Top 40 singles!
-Their two shows at Knebworth in July 1996 drew 125,000 each (with 2 million additional ticket applications), by far the biggest shows on British soil to this day.

Now, I know that popularity alone doesn't get you a spot, but all that will be tough to ignore. Plus it seems they have plenty of influence on the modern indie bands (I believe Alex Turner of the Arctic Monkeys has said that Definitely Maybe was the reason he picked up a guitar.) Not to mention that Paul McCartney, Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend are fans. So they're a long way behind other British indie bands in terms of qualifying (ironically they've got a better chance of making it in than those except Radiohead and maybe The Smiths), but I predict a combination of weak ballots, critical acclaim (delayed; I read the critics actually hated Morning Glory when it came out then had to eat crow when it became huge), and being the only Britpop band to do anything in the US will get them in eventually, possibly even first ballot. As for whether they should, that's another discussion entirely. I'll do a Keltner eventually.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 05.11.10 @ 20:27pm


Just waiting for Liam to show up...

Posted by Chalkie on Tuesday, 05.11.10 @ 20:33pm


Blur was better in my opinion, but Oasis was good. Their first two albums were classics, and then the rest was just good. Even Be Here Now was good, just way to long. Oasis has a strong catalogue/popularity. They are well known in the US.

Posted by Demigod on Tuesday, 05.11.10 @ 23:25pm


Oasis seems to be a popular topic. They're a Beatles tribute band. Nothing more than that.

Posted by B.O.B. on Tuesday, 05.11.10 @ 23:27pm


Liam disappeared, showed up briefly for the nominations or inductees that just happened, then vanished again. Certainly Blur was a more adventurous band, as was Suede (though not as much as Blur.) All three bands helped keep guitar pop on top of the charts, and all three have some very strong work in their back catalogues. That's all I'll say on the subject for now.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 05.13.10 @ 21:34pm


Oasis, i'm a neutral on this. Champagne Supernova and Wonderwall and Don't Look Back In Anger and Morning Glory and Live Forever and Supersonic and Shock of Lightning and Don't Go Away and Importance of Being Idle are their only songs to be succesful in the United States. That's not enough successful songs. Blur was more successful in the United States than Oasis.

Posted by Steve on Friday, 05.14.10 @ 00:35am


dude, i just heard champagne supernova on the radio. didn't know they were still popular over here.

Posted by ricko on Saturday, 05.15.10 @ 17:17pm


"That's not enough successful songs." - Steve

No matter. The Sex Pistols had one album which wasn't certified platinum until 15 years after it's release and it never gets any airplay, but I'd never deny them their place in the Hall.

"Blur was more successful in the United States than Oasis." - Steve

Are you sure we're talking about the same United States? Oasis' peak chart position was #2, and the second highest peak was #4. Morning Glory went 4x platinum, Definitely Maybe and Be Here Now both went platinum. Top 10 songs in the US: Oasis 1, Blur 0. Top 40 songs in the US: Oasis 3, Blur 0. Blur's singles chart positions: "There's No Other Way" #82, "Girls & Boys" #59, "M.O.R." #114. US Modern Rock Tracks success for Oasis: 2 #1's, 5 Top 10's, 10 Top 20's, 11 Top 40's. Blur's peak chart position in the US was #56, and they only had 3 other Top 100 studio albums. Their first 3 studio albums didn't even chart in the US. Not to mention they only had one gold album. I can't find Blur's US Modern Rock Tracks #'s, but their US Alternative #'s: 0 #1's, 3 Top 10's, 5 Top 40's.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 05.16.10 @ 16:05pm


ROCKO SANCHEZ 8===============> - - -

Posted by DIRTY TEXACO on Sunday, 05.16.10 @ 18:30pm


Rock and Roll Jeopardy:
Category: If they collaborated
If Oasis and Right Said Fred collaborated
I'm Too Sexy to Live Forever

Posted by reggie on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 19:29pm


Oasis, one hit wonders. They made Wonderwall, that's it. That's all they did. They weren't even big enough in the UK to warrant induction.

Posted by Gordon on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 19:30pm


"Oasis, one hit wonders." - Gordon

Alright, it's true they only had 1 Top 10 hit in the US (yes, "Wonderwall") but "Champagne Supernova" was a Top 20 hit and was also a #1 Modern Rock hit. Plus two other Top 40 singles, but thanks for playing.

"They made Wonderwall, that's it. That's all they did." - Gordon

The only you like? Fine, but me and millions of other people beg to differ.

"They weren't even big enough in the UK to warrant induction." - Gordon

Did you do any research before you typed that? They were by far the biggest Britpop group (plus the only one to do anything in the US,) and one of only a few British Indie groups to make any impact in the US. Most importantly, pretty much the biggest band in the UK in the last 15 years. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_discography

If those UK numbers mean anything to the commitee (though popularity alone doesn't earn you a spot), they're a shoo-in. What that won't tell you: Definitely Maybe set a new record for first-week sales in the UK (later broken), WSTMG? was as of 2006 the third biggest album in British history, and I believe Be Here Now set first-day sales records. Plus those were last count also among the 100 most popular albums in British history. Do some research before you type. No, they weren't really innovative, but I've discovered they do have plenty of influence on modern-day indie, so I could go either way on it.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 19:52pm


I hear Song 2 by Blur played far more than anything by Oasis. Didn't Blur win that chart battle in UK in the 90's? Blur won that whole britpop battle thing. Blur gets more airplay on US radio nowadays. Well, only Song 2, but still.

Posted by Gordon on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 20:29pm


Oasis one hit wonders? Your joking right? Even in the US they weren't one hit wonders. A one hit wonder is when you have only one top 40 hit. Oasis had Champagne Supernova, Do You Know What I Mean, and Don't Look Back in Anger go top 40, Champagne Supernova was top 20. Not to mention Wonderwall of course, #8 on the chart. 3 platinum albums in the US, all their albums except for their debut were in the top 25, including four top 10 albums, 3 top 5 albums. 2 modern rock number ones, and selling about 6 million albums here alone. They sold out madison square and the hollywood bowl. You can also add Rock and Roll Star, Live Forever, Shock of the Lightning, Some Might Say, Supersonic and Morning Glory to the list, as they were hits on modern rock radio. I think that's breaking the American market. In the UK it's a whole other level. It can't be described how huge they are over there.

Posted by Don on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 20:35pm


A beatles tribute band, nothing more than that. They stole all their riffs from other songs. And they were massive egos. Oasis blows.

Posted by Gordon on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 20:37pm


Hmmmm...I would guess that Gordon doesn't care for them much. The one thing I remember about Oasis' initial "assault" on this country...they did way more talking than they could've ever hoped to back up. Proclaiming to be "bigger than the Beatles" is a pretty bold statement, and when you can't back it up (which, let's face it...the couldn't), people are going to lose interest pretty quickly. I know going by how "great" they professed to be, when I finally heard them I remember thinking "That's it...????"

That was my initial impression of Oasis...and you've only got one shot to make one...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 21:09pm


I'm not saying they're a bad group...just that their mouths wrote a check their butts couldn't cash...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 21:33pm


Now obviously Oasis weren't the Beatles, but they weren't bad. Morning Glory is a classic album. Oasis should get considered, but making statements like saying your better than the Beatles is way to much to live up to.

Posted by 32-Bit Xbox on Tuesday, 06.8.10 @ 00:24am


I'm not saying they're a bad group...just that their mouths wrote a check their butts couldn't cash...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 21:33pm

Well Gitar, it is a shame that though they've kept their UK popularity very much alive they blew it in the US by running their mouths. Yes, they slagged off a lot of people, and Noel's statements about Factory Records rubbed me the wrong way, and his statement that Definitely Maybe was the most important rock album since Nevermind is dubious at best (especially since Nevermind, though great, has been a bit overstated in terms of impact.) I think, however, you should give what they wrote a try. As 32-Bit Xbox said, Morning Glory is a fine album. It was the soundtrack to my childhood and still holds up now. And I suggest the "Stop the Clocks" compilation, that's a fine place to start. I haven't heard "Talk Tonight" and "Half the World Away" and I don't care for "Songbird" but the rest are all solid tunes that you can find on You Tube. "The Masterplan" was a B-Side but was good enough to be an A-Side.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_the_Clocks

Also, "Whatever" and "Shakermaker" the other singles from Def. Maybe are fantastic pop tunes and the latter should've been on the compilation. I highly reccomend you listen to that as well. If you give those tunes a fair chance and you like them then I'd check out either Definitely Maybe or (What's the Story) Morning Glory? If you like whichever one you get then check out the other one; those are the two albums that most people agree are essential. There's not really a consensus with Be Here Now, but I'd check out the singles from that as well, "D'You Know What I Mean" "All Around The World" and "Stand By Me" (though those tend to drift.) And the last album produced two more solid singles "The Shock of the Lightning" and "Falling Down" (there was a third but I didn't really like it.) On the whole they were a band with plenty of quality tunes both as singles and non-singles which will be listened to for many years.

As for the Hall of Fame, I'm leaning towards "Yes" though not without reservations (I'll explain later.)

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 06.8.10 @ 22:04pm


Some people are off their rocker.

You, Steve, are misinformed (to keep name calling to a minimum). "That's not enough successful songs. Blur was more successful in the United States than Oasis."

Erm, the ONLY Blur song that ever gets played in the US is 'Song 2' and when was the last time you heard that?

Oasis have broken the US. Not as well as they should or could have, but they still get copious amounts of playtime.

Steve is a troll. He has no idea what he's talking about.

Oasis lock.

Posted by SteveIsWrong on Tuesday, 06.8.10 @ 23:01pm


To sum up Oasis (for me, anyway) would be to simply point out that the no-brainer, first ballot Hall of Famers didn't have to tell anyone how great they were...and I'll be the first to admit that I was a little turned off by them before I ever heard them sing a note. There are very few artists that could pull that off with that much braggadocio. Nowadays, I just think "Oh, yeah...these are the guys who were gonna make us forget the Beatles..."

In the U.S., I don't think they have (or ever will) live that down.

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 06.9.10 @ 19:22pm


They're not a no-brainer or a first ballot induction, true, and as far as indie they need to get in line. The problem is that if they ignore them then they'll also ignore the earlier indie artists who are worthy except maybe The Smiths and definitely Radiohead, so they'd be ignoring nearly 20 years worth of British music up to the point where they inevitably induct Coldplay (unless by some fluke they induct Massive Attack, and I say 20 years since they've been hedging on New Order, The Cure and Joy Division as well as The Smiths.) That would worsen their track record even more. However, they have lived that down somewhat in the US. "Wonderwall", "Champagne Supernova" and "Don't Look Back In Anger" all get plenty of airplay, and the two albums before they split had improving chart positions, making it look like they were beginning a comeback in the US. Right, Keltner time:

1. Were Oasis ever regarded as the best artist in rock (Did anyone ever seriously suggest this?) Only die-hard fans and a few critics would say it and I don't think it. I haven't heard any musicians say it.

2. Were Oasis ever the best artist in rock music in their genre? Pop-rock? No way. Britpop? Apples and oranges, though Blur's catalog stands out as more diverse, and Suede tried a few more different things as well (and rocked slightly harder.) Apples and oranges because the three are so different. Indie? I'd say no, and they're certainly not the most influential there.

3. Were Oasis ever considered the best at their instruments? They definitely weren't going for virtuosity; in fact, part of the initial charm was the rawness of the rockers on Definitely Maybe and also how polished and simple Morning Glory was. Plenty of hooks (my dad says the best hooks of the last 15 years belong to Oasis, Blur and The Killers.) There are plenty of better players waiting.

4. Did Oasis have an impact on a number of other bands? It appears they influenced quite a few modern indie bands. For example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/jan/14/popandrock.libertines Yes, they influenced The Libertines and The Arctic Monkeys, and I hear they've also influenced The Killers and Franz Ferdinand (Unconfirmed; I'll check more later.) I'm pretty sure they've influenced Coldplay as well, as you can draw some connection in terms of the ballads, I've seen Noel perform with Coldplay and Coldplay's music is sometimes compared to Britpop. And I wouldn't be surprised if those first two albums got a lot of kids picking up guitars for the first time, which has to count for something.

5. Were Oasis good enough that they could play after their prime? There are many people who feel they should've stopped at the end of the 90's. If we assume they were past their prime in 2000 (post-Britpop), then yes, as they released four albums in the 2000's to great success at home (more on that later), continued to perform and were still headlining major festivals and shows throughout Europe at the time of the split. Their last album even received a positive review from one of their biggest critics.

6. Are Oasis the very best artist in history not in the HOF? No way, nor the most influential.

7. Are most bands with a comparable recording history + impact in the HOF? Well, those first two albums rank fairly high on Greatest Albums polls done by UK magazines. Critical perception? The 54th greatest artists of all time, according to Acclaimed Music. Of the 53 considered better 40 are inducted, 3 more will definitely be inducted, and the rest range from likely to slim chances. They're also ranked as the 18th greatest artists of the UK, with 13 of the ones ahead being inducted, and the 4th greatest artists of the 90's (of the 3 ahead there, 2 are locks and the other's already inducted.) So critics consider them one of the very best not in the Hall. There are plenty of artists with more of an impact not in, but on the whole most who unquestionably have had a bigger impact are inducted.

Part 2 tomorrow.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 06.9.10 @ 22:15pm


I hear Song 2 by Blur played far more than anything by Oasis. Didn't Blur win that chart battle in UK in the 90's? Blur won that whole britpop battle thing. Blur gets more airplay on US radio nowadays. Well, only Song 2, but still.

Posted by Gordon on Monday, 06.7.10 @ 20:29pm

I rarely hear Song 2, and Blur has plenty of other great songs. I hear "Wonderwall" "Don't Look Back In Anger" and "Champagne Supernova" much more. Blur won the battle but long-term Oasis won the war, which is why Blur re-invented their sound after Oasis eclipsed them in popularity.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 06.9.10 @ 22:18pm


8. Is there any evidence to suggest that Oasis were any significantly better or worse than suggested by statistical records? Well, only that the riff for "Cigarettes and Alcohol" was swiped from T. Rex, thus making it more likely to become a hit. Other than that no.

9. Are Oasis the best artist in it's genre eligible for the HOF? Not eligible yet, but in my opinion no, though I could see why other people would say yes.

10. How many #1 singles/gold records did Oasis have? Any Grammy wins or nominations? No #1's in the US (though they did top the Modern Rock Charts twice), and both went Gold. Also in the US two platinum albums and one 4x platinum album. In the UK: 8 (!) #1 singles, 6 Silver (60,000 copies) singles, 5 Gold (100,000) singles and 3 Platinum (300,000). On the albums front, 2 Platinum albums (the live album and The Masterplan, a B-sides compilation) and 8 multi-platinum (more on that later.) A second compilation is due out Monday, and that will probably do well. I don't think they ever won a Grammy, though Noel was nominated once or twice for best Rock Song. I know "All Around the World" was nominated for best music video but lost. They have won a ton of Brit awards (UK equivalent to the Grammys.)

11. How many Grammy-level songs/albums did Oasis have? For how long of a period did Oasis dominate the music scene? Any Rolling Stone covers they appeared on? Did most bands with this type of impact go to the HOF? Did they have any songs or albums better than stuff which won Grammys? Absolutely, in my mind. They were pretty much dominating the US for a while in the mid 90's, as WSTMG? ruled the radio and they moved into the stratosphere of stadium rock. This level of dominance ended in the US won Be Here Now tanked, but they were selling out arenas in parts of Canada and some parts of the world, and could still headline major festivals in Europe. In the UK? Wow! At the time of their breakup they could still sell out Wembley Stadium a decade after their "heyday", all of their studio albums went to #1, and each one went at least 2x platinum (600,000), with Definitely Maybe setting a new record for first-week sales, Morning Glory being the third biggest album in British history and Be Here Now setting new first-day sales records (all are among the 100 biggest albums in British history.) The live album released at the end of Britpop got to #5 and went platinum, the B-Sides compilation was #2 and Platinum (1998) and Stop the Clocks (a Best-Of) was #2 and 5x platinum (1,500,000 sold, released in 2006.) One of the biggest bands in the world for part of the 90's, the biggest band in Britain for the past 15 years and for the second half of the 90's there was no escaping them (I was there though very young; Morning Glory was constantly played in the car, not that I minded.) They did appear on Rolling Stone once. There are bands waiting with more I&I, but yes most bands who DOMINATED one country have been inducted.

12. If Oasis were the best band at a concert, would the concert rock? I never saw them live, but I saw a Wembley Arena show from '08 on TV and though Liam's voice was rough it was great. They were tight and the crowd clearly enjoyed themselves.

13. What impact did Oasis have on rock history? Were they responsible for any stylistic changes? Did they introduce any new equipment? Did Oasis change history in any way? No new equipment. They've influenced quite a few indie bands, it seems. They didn't single-handedly revive guitar music and bring it back to the top of the British charts as some say, but they did contribute to it along with Blur and Suede (they came after those two bands, but them existing was a balancing act as the other two were experimenting in '94.) I don't think they changed things in the US, but the cultural and musical impact in the UK is huge.

Based on this (the 14th is irrelevant), I'd say you could make a case for them based on the influence, though some might say that influence isn't enough. For nostalgia reasons I'll have no problem with them being inducted except that they might end up looking slightly more important than they were.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 06.11.10 @ 21:39pm


I guess my feelings can be summed up by the liner notes someone wrote for Morning Glory: "Coming down off the nova somewhere near the boiled egg that is the Royal Albert Hall, we watch Paul's sun crossed with John's star and hold ice cream hands. Someone slipped on a cassette as the one you wanted left with someone else but somehow it was cool because as the music filled the shadows, you heard a sound that was a million miles away from fakery and a step away from your heart.

Just like it always did, this sound puts the swagger bakc into your step, the rush into your blood but somehow, and I don't know how, they had become deeper, wider, soulful, better at their craft, inspired by so many things like a world that is tilting who knows where and the applause they always knew was theirs but waited so impatiently to receive...

As you are dragged inside on this trip abandon, you hear a council estate singing it's heart out...

At the end you flip over and start again because now you are not isolated. They have gone to work so that you can go home. High above the day turns pink and you feel your feet lift above the ground as new roads open up in front of you. In this town the jury is always rigged but the people know. They always know the truth. Believe. Belief. Beyond. Their morning glory." (... = skipping over some bits.)

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 06.17.10 @ 10:56am


Bigger than the Beatles
They have more #1 singles in the UK than the Beatles and more radio airplay in the US.

Posted by Darren on Saturday, 07.3.10 @ 19:54pm


Saying that Oasis is "bigger than the Beatles" is just plain dumb...there's no way to even sugar coat it...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.3.10 @ 20:07pm


Oasis certified American album sales: 6 million

Beatles certified American album sales: 170 million, the most ever. I knew those two stats without looking them up.

Beatles certified UK album sales: 6,260,000 without Sgt. Peppers. As of June 14 2009, however, Sgt. Peppers had sold 4,908,288 copies in the UK, making it the second biggest selling album in British history (and best selling studio album.) Tack on the Sgt. Peppers album sales, and you get 11,168,288 copies sold.

Oasis' biggest album is WSTMG?, which sold 4 million copies in the US, and probably the tenth most succesful Beatles album topped that. In the UK it's sold 4,421,505 copies as of last June, making it the 4th biggest selling album (and second biggest studio album, trailing Sgt. Peppers by nearly 500,000 copies.) Total UK sales as certified: 13,431,505 copies, beating out the Beatles by 2 million.

#1 singles in the UK: 19 for the Beatles, 8 for Oasis.

#1 albums in the UK (Compilations, EP's and Live Albums included): 23 for the Beatles, 11 of which were studio albums, compared to 8 for Oasis (including all 7 of their studio albums.)

#1 singles in the US: 20 for the Beatles, 0 for Oasis.

#1 albums in the US: 20 for the Beatles, 0 for Oasis.

Top 40 singles in the UK: 33 for the Beatles, 26 for Oasis.

Top 40 singles in the US: 48 (!) for the Beatles, 5 for Oasis.

So, the Beatles have won all but one of these competitions, 4 of which they won overwhelmingly. That's without mentioning that no British act had ever done anything in the US prior to the Beatles, acts didn't sell as much in the 60's, and the Beatles played only a couple of live shows after 1965/66. As for more airplay in the US: No way. Oasis don't have a weekly radio show dedicated to them in my area.

Look, I like Oasis alot, and I do think there might be room for them in the Hall. But I'm with Gitarzan on this one. That really was a ludicrous statement.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 07.6.10 @ 17:31pm


#1 singles in the UK: 19 for the Beatles, 8 for Oasis.

#1 albums in the UK (Compilations, EP's and Live Albums included): 23 for the Beatles, 11 of which were studio albums, compared to 8 for Oasis (including all 7 of their studio albums.)

#1 singles in the US: 20 for the Beatles, 0 for Oasis.

#1 albums in the US: 20 for the Beatles, 0 for Oasis.

Top 40 singles in the UK: 33 for the Beatles, 26 for Oasis.

Top 40 singles in the US: 48 (!) for the Beatles, 5 for Oasis.
--------------------------------------------------
Look, I like Oasis alot, and I do think there might be room for them in the Hall. But I'm with Gitarzan on this one. That really was a ludicrous statement.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 07.6.10 @ 17:31pm
--------------------------------------------------
Pardon me for editing your comment here.

I agree w/both Gitar & yourself that the comment about Oasis being bigger than the Beatles is foolish. What I will say is that the gap between them in terms of slaes impact is not nearly as great as perceived.

You often mention singles sales in your statements here. In America, singles sales have stopped mattering since about 1985 in any real manner. Personally, I think one of the reasons popular music in general has suffered is the lack of affordable singles, or even affordable EP's of any note (last one I remember that did anything was AIC's "Jar of Flies", & that was back in 94). A single tended to matter more in the Beatles heyday; in today's world, at least in America, it doesn't stand for much.

Though I still agree w/the both of you about the earlier comment.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 07.27.10 @ 06:09am


Nobody in the USA has ever heard of Oasis. They're huge in the UK though. So that might help.

Posted by kevin on Tuesday, 07.27.10 @ 12:03pm


Well Kevin they are one of the few UK indie bands to break the US and have more than 1-2 hit singles. Only Franz Ferdinand, Coldplay (not really indie), and a couple others have. The lowest charting album in the US is #56 the 2nd is #24. And they have 2 Platinum albums 1 multi platinum, 5 top 40 hits, 13 modern rock hits. So Oasis was popular in the US at one time. Now they're essentially a cult band, but are still remembered for what they did in 95-98.

Posted by Danny on Tuesday, 07.27.10 @ 12:07pm


One hit wonders. Nobody has given a crap about Ned Gallagher and his brother Liam since about 1997. Wonderwall is like their only well known song. That and supernova in the sky are their only hits. But nobody remembers the supernova one. Only people remember Wonderwall. Beatles rip offs from the beginning and they sucked. At least Blur didn't completely suck.

Posted by elk are better than deer on Tuesday, 07.27.10 @ 20:38pm


Cheers to Cheesecrop, Kevin and Danny for well-thought out comments. Jeers to Mr. elk for making several mistakes. For one thing, you called them one hit wonders, and then contradicted yourself by providing TWO hits. You also got the name of one of them wrong. Both of them are remembered, as is "Don't Look Back In Anger" and the other 90's singles are kind of remembered as well (though everything's remembered on my side of the ocean.) You also got one of their names wrong. Also, "nobody has given a crap since 1997?" Their last album debuted at #5, I'll have you know, and I think Pete Townshend, Paul McCartney, Johnny Marr and most of the indie bands around today would have something to say about that statement. The "Beatles rip offs" thing is tired out, and I'm not sure how lifting one harmony gets you that moniker. They do have some bouts of stealing stuff, but that concerns other artists (if you can't recognize the T. Rex one you're deaf.) I don't condone any of that, but the history of music is littered with bouts of plagiarism. We can discuss specifics if you like. "They sucked" is subjective. The only thing you got right there was that Blur didn't suck. Well done, you waste of oxygen.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 08.1.10 @ 07:33am


"Yes. Like i've said trillions of times, if they don't get in, than no other British alternative band deserves to get in."

Tell me you're joking, because that's an incredibly ignorant comment.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 08.1.10 @ 07:35am


They should be inducted for their absolutely outstanding b side output alone.

What an incredible album 'the masterplan' is, still being talked about today.

Add to that Definitely Maybe, Morning Glory and vastly underrated Be Here Now and you've got yourself a classic band.

Noel Gallagher could pen tune after tune and deserves some goddamn respect.

Posted by Ben on Tuesday, 08.10.10 @ 03:48am


They will. Their impact everywhere was to big to ignore. Many high profile bands, even American bands, have cited them and covered them. While they weren't innovative, they sold records and influenced. Vote yes.

Posted by Eric on Sunday, 08.15.10 @ 13:19pm


I sure will (I am biased.) Though they did churn out some crap, I stand by Morning Glory as a great album of my youth, and it's held up very well over the last 15 years. I've rediscovered Definitely Maybe, an album I wouldn't have understood when I was young, and it sounds as fresh and exciting to me as it did to the kids of the 90's. Eric said it perfectly. I think (and partially hope) that they'll be inducted around the 25th anniversary of Morning Glory. They shouldn't ignore Blur, Suede, The Stone Roses and the like but they will, sadly.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 08.24.10 @ 20:33pm


Bands influenced by Oasis:
Arctic Monkeys
Sum 41
Bloc Party
Franz Ferdinand
Interpol
Weezer
Good Charlotte
Jet
Kasabian
The Libertines
My Chemical Romance
The Killers
Coldplay
The Stereophonics
Panic at the disco

They influeneced quite a large amount of bands that have had success mainstream wise in the UK and US. Say what you want about those artists, but the point is Oasis influenced them.

Posted by Bronski on Thursday, 08.26.10 @ 15:24pm


They influenced Bloc Party? Are you sure??

I've never really understood the Coldplay one either. The two bands don't sound alike and I always get the feeling in interviews that Chris Martin's kissing Noel's butt 'cause he's his mate rather than making a committed statement whether he really likes Oasis.

Posted by Pretzel on Sunday, 09.12.10 @ 22:34pm


I'll start by saying that when you get to play with The Who (no, are invited to play with The Who) that shows respect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdEh38KDq9s&feature=related (Noel also was invited to perform at the Teenage Cancer Trust thing set up by Roger Daltrey.)

As for the issue at hand, I quote music writer John Harris: "There was a sense of market chasing going on after awhile. If sitting on an acoustic guitar and playing a redemptive ballad like 'Wonderwall' became the way to get 100,000 people to stick their cigarette lighters in the air and 2 million to buy your album then everybody started to do it. I mean, some of them were quite nice but... 'Why Does It Always Rain On Me?' by Travis or those early Embrace singles, I mean Coldplay a bit further down the line I'd associate with all of this." You can certainly draw some connections between the softer moments and ballads of Oasis and Coldplay. The Libertines? Definitely a connection there, and apparently the Arctic Monkeys have said that "Definitely Maybe" was what got them to pick up guitars. I'm sure plenty of other people would say the same. I've never listened to Bloc Party, so I don't know about that.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 09.16.10 @ 10:03am


They're now inducted into Rock Hall Projected, first ballot with the most votes.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 10.6.10 @ 03:55am


If Blur gets in, there is no doubt that Oasis will get in.
Don't get me wrong I think that Blur in many ways is the better band.I'm starting to hate people who keep on putting their chart positions and their number 1 albums on here. It's not a popularity contest.
I also saw some idiot who said "Blur's all about singles and Oasis is more about albums."
I WILL PIMP SLAP YOU!
BLUR IS WAY MORE ABOUT THE ALBUMS THAN OASIS!
Look at Blur's album Parklife! 4/16 singles. Look at Oasis's Morning Glory! 6/12 SINGLES! THAT'S HALF OF THE F******' ALBUM!

Posted by JBar on Sunday, 10.24.10 @ 18:21pm


I like both but I agree that Blur is the better band, and has more great albums.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 11.1.10 @ 17:25pm


To be fair they did shake things up a whole lot back in '95 and '96 with a couple of good-ish singles, but that was about it, everything they did beyond that period was muck. The saddest thing about Noel Gallagher down through the years was his brazen willingness to slag off everyone else in the business (apart from his precious beatles and paul weller that is) as old and past it, its 2010 and he's the one thats old and past it and he's still making these stupid statements himself. Oasis touched something in a lot of people that made them love this band and thats fair enough, there's no arguing with their success in the 90s, but imo they are one of the most overated bands in rock history with one hell of an over-inflated ego.

Posted by Paul on Saturday, 11.13.10 @ 09:25am


Also i might add that the incident in toronto where Noel was assaulted from behind was disgusting, i've been attacked from behind myself and it doesnt take a brave man to do that, whoever the guy is he's a cowardly loser. However Gallagher has spent his entire career running his mouth about certain people, now of course i dont think he deserved what happened to him that night but certain nutters of the world read into things more than most and do stupid cowardly things...like push rock stars off stages.

Posted by Paul on Saturday, 11.13.10 @ 09:30am


Whilst I didn't care as much for their 2000's work (though there was still stuff I enjoyed, particularly the first half of DOYS) they had some outstanding stuff before that, with some great B-Sides as well. I think Morning Glory will get them in (of course, the Hall could just pass over indie band except Radiohead, right?)

"The saddest thing about Noel Gallagher down through the years was his brazen willingness to slag off everyone else in the business (apart from his precious beatles and paul weller that is)"

He also wouldn't slag off The Who (he's played with them once, and has performed at the Teenage Cancer Trust a couple of times.) Also off limits for him: The Smiths (even by his and Liam's standards of slagging that would be pathetic, because his pal [and hero] Johnny Marr is partially responsible for his success), The Stone Roses (because he's friends with them, and also because there might not be an Oasis without them), Coldplay (his friends are off-limits for slagging)... did I miss anyone? Liam has just as big a mouth.

I did find it ironic but slightly amusing that they splintered apart in the middle of Blur's succesful reunion. At the risk of starting another Blur-Oasis "war":

Definitely Maybe>Leisure

Modern Life Is Rubbish=Morning Glory

Parklife>Be Here Now

The Great Escape>Standing on The Shoulders of Giants

Blur>Heathen Chemistry

13>Don't Believe The Truth

Dig Out Your Soul>Think Tank

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 11.14.10 @ 08:14am


The problem that I have with JBAR's argument is that you are kinda assuming that because Oasis released 6 singles off of an album, then that means that they cared about singles more. Doesnt you releasing 6 singles show how strong your album really is. I mean Born In The USA had like 8 singles, but are you going to say that he only cares more about singles than the album.

To me Oasis and Blur in terms of out put were the same band. Modern Life Is Rubbish along with Parklife are about on the same level with Definitely Maybe and What's The Story Morning Glory. The Great Escape was big bust just like Be Here Now was, which is something that most people forget. Think Tank along along with 13 are on about the same level as Don't Believe The Truth and Dig Out Your Soul. Liesure is a pretty bad album and is probably just as bad as Oasis' Standing On The Shoulder of Giants. Blur's self titled kills Heathen Chemistry and by that you would think that that would mean that Blur be slight better than Oasis, but if you include Oasis' b-side album (which is amazing) The Masterplan, then Oasis pulls even with Blur.

To me the out put was about the same and in the ned it just depends on what kind of music you like more. Do you like Oasis;' symplistic genius or do like Blur's mini symphonies. Both bands are great. But if I had to choose which band will go into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, in the end it will be Oasis.

Oasis just had more of an impact on music. And no its not just the fact that they charted in America and had 2 or 3 pretty big albums in America. What's get them in is the fact that they have influenced so many bands in the past 15. Everyday I hear American and UK bands and artists who come and say that Oasis is what influenced them. I rarely hear that with Blur and I'm a mega Blur fan. Music journalists have given Blur credit, but in terms of bands from both sides of the pond, there just hasnt been enough to get Blur in.

Oasis not only had the record sales, but they had the influence. And in the end, that is what gets you in. Oasis just influenced more people than Blur. I mean the record slaes dont hurt, but in the end the voters want to see that you left a legacy. And its not enough for a few music journalists to say that you were influencial. At some point, you need those bands that you influnced to come out and say that this band changed my life. Oasis has just had a lot more of that happen to them than Blur has. End of story.

Posted by Robert on Monday, 11.22.10 @ 22:35pm


Another thing. These are the music legends that say that they like Oasis

1. The Smiths
2. Paul McCartney
3. The Stone Roses
4. Ray Davies
5. Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey
6. John Lyodn or Johnny Rotten
7. Paul Weller
8. Metallica
9. George Martin
10. Burt Bacharach

Thats not a complete list. Those are some pretty big names in music who all say that they like Oasis. Someone might argue on Paul McCartney, but McCartney has always said that he liked Oasis and that his favorite song by them is Slide Away. The only thing he scoffed at was Oasis being the next Beatles, but he does like Oasis. Andh e was even in a band with Noel Gallagher called the Mojo Filters which inlcuded Noel Gallagher, Paul McCartney, Paul Weller, and Johnny Depp. Yes the acotr Johnny Depp. So add that name too, to the people who like Oasis. Pretty good list if you ask me.

Posted by Robert on Monday, 11.22.10 @ 22:48pm


"1. The Smiths
2. Paul McCartney
3. The Stone Roses"

You can discount 1 and 3. I do think their opinions on this matter carry weight, but they're not getting in even though they should, so the Commitee's (spelling?) not going to take their opinions into account. However, if Paul makes a case for them that'll help their chances.

"4. Ray Davies
5. Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey"

Right... Noel's even performed with The Who before, and has played at the Teenage Cancer Trust, which is organized by Daltrey. Metallica aren't fans, per se, but Ulrich and Hammett are.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 11.27.10 @ 07:30am


"They influenced Bloc Party? Are you sure??"

They did not. Liam insulted them before, and this was Bloc Party's reaction to the split:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF9Ld6XGTXo&feature=player_embedded

Yes I'm SURE they influenced Bloc Party.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 12.3.10 @ 05:27am


Personally, I'm 99% sure they'll get into the HOF, though it might take a few years after eligibility to get in.

Posted by Justin on Monday, 01.3.11 @ 11:42am


I'm bored, so I'm going to take the GFW route here:

Innovation: Eh, this has been debated, and I could go either way. Chalkie said you could maybe make a case for this, and rock writer and fellow Mancunian John Robb once had this to say: "The key to Oasis is that they are every great moment in British pop rolled into one." I'm leaning no, though; even some of their finest moments (which are real high points, don't get me wrong) can be frustratingly derivative/plagiaristic. See "Cigarettes & Alcohol" as an example.

Influence: Yes.

Sales: This depends on your perspective. For one thing, it depends on how important you think sales are. Their being the only one of the "Britpop" groups (and one of very few British Indie groups) to make a substantial Stateside dent should be noted, as should still having new albums chart respectably and still selling out Madison Square Garden at the time of their breakup. However, in the long run, their popularity in the US was nothing earth shattering, so this would be a no if that's all you think is important. Elsewhere? Obviously the numbers in the UK are staggering. They were quite big in other parts of Europe (still headlining festivals) and Japan, and were still selling out stadiums in South America. An estimated 50 million records sold worldwide. US no, worldwide (which is what should count as it's less myopic) yes.

They scored 2 of 3, so I'll say yes, though there's others I'd like to see in first.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 03.31.11 @ 18:09pm


Oasis is probably my least favorite band ever. Overrated, pretentious, holier-than-thou douchebags with music that (in my opinion) is whiny and terrible

Posted by James on Wednesday, 06.22.11 @ 14:37pm


James, while I disagree with you on Nirvana and Green Day, i'm so glad to find someone else who finds these guy's boring as hell. Champagne Supernova is the only song of their's I like.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 06.22.11 @ 16:41pm


One more flog of the dead horse: Lyrics. Yeah Noel's had trouble getting meaning across plenty of times, but the same could be said of many other people. Blur on Leisure and most of The Great Escape had nothing to say... I guess Little Richard should be kicked out since Tutti Frutti is a load of nonsense. Find another angle to work on.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 07.4.11 @ 12:30pm


oasis are of my favourite groups especially when i was a kid , my fav songs are morning glory , champagne supernova , little by little , dont look back in anger , supersonic , live forever , around the world , stand by me they well deserve a place sometime

Posted by peter charlie 1991 on Thursday, 01.19.12 @ 15:52pm


when you play knebworth and 2 million people apply for tickets, you deserve something pretty damn special

Posted by jose on Thursday, 08.16.12 @ 00:25am


One Hit Wonder... After "Wonderwall" they dissapeared... Not hall of fame worthy at all.

Posted by Michael on Sunday, 05.11.14 @ 20:07pm


Three incorrect statements in one line.

Posted by DarinRG on Sunday, 05.11.14 @ 22:01pm


They'll be, but I believe they'll wait as much as The Smiths.

RNR Hall of Fame seems to value bands that are successfull in America, Oasis are huge in the UK, but they were a blip in America, Wonderwall was their only top 40 song.

But it would be kind of complicated if the hall ignores an entire moviment on the britpop and liking them or not, they are the most important band.

Late 20s induction is most likely, 2026-2028

Posted by Romo on Friday, 07.4.14 @ 19:40pm


this band sucks balls

Posted by Joosh on Saturday, 11.21.15 @ 22:06pm


They should 100% be first ballet hall of famers! They were an awesome live band that had 3 classic rock and roll records: Definitely Maybe, Morning Glory, and Standing on the Shoulder of Giants (grossly under appreciated record). Plus, to add to that, there other records were above average. See The Smashing Pumpkins for a band that had great early records and astonishly horrific later records. Which records are above average? In my opinion: Be Here Now, Heathen Chemistry, and Don't Believe the Truth. Yes, the last record was bad, ok really bad, but no band is perfect. And even on the last record there were a few classics. Noel Gallagher is a very gifted songwriter. Liam is an extremely gifted front man and great singer. I saw them live only once unfortunately and they were damn good! This is from an American fans perspective. Pearl Jam, Radiohead, and Oasis are all first ballet in the coming years! Easy peasy. Blur and Pulp should be in but will tragically go unrecognized. Last thought: The Cure > The Smiths! Recognize The Cure immediately hall of fame please!

Posted by Drew on Friday, 07.8.16 @ 17:33pm


I think oasis will make it in. they were one of the biggest bands in he world in the 90s, and even though their post Be Here Now stuff was not as good as their early days, they still had many decent tunes to pull them through.

Posted by James on Sunday, 07.31.16 @ 15:24pm


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.